Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush on the Couch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 02:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bush on the Couch

The article is an inaccurate summary plugging a nn 272-page book that was the only book written by this author. The book itself was written in early 2004. To say that the book was not exactly a best seller would be an understatement. Joaquin Murietta 14:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge opinion to George W. Bush, as there has indeed been speculation about his drinking habits on a wide scale in the past couple of years. Recently, there was an article about the issue in some tabaloid (Star or what have you). Granted, they are speculations only at this point, I think, but we can insert the information about said speculation in a NPOV way. This article itself, however, is unnecessary. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep... book made some waves when it was published before the election. I don't set the bar on books as high as best-seller list. Is there criteria like WP:MUSIC for literature? I'd concur with Jacquelyn Marie if it wasn't for the constant POV edit war over there at George W. Bush... Bush on the Couch would be giving them gasoline and matches. Regardless, I'd slap a dated cleanup on this article becuase if it is kept it needs a complete rewrite.--Isotope23 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point about gasoline and matches. I am changing my vote to weak keep. Isotope23's call for a cleanup tag is also a good idea. --Jacquelyn Marie 05:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.Gator1 19:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Amazon sales rank of 10,200 (pretty high up there), and major media attention including reviews from notable publications (e.g. Salon) and mention in the Washington Post's "Reliable Sources" column. Meelar (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Disclaimer: I wrote the text that another wikipedian has described as POV, and an inaccurate summary.
  • I think the book is notable, even if it didn't make any best-seller lists.
  • I think we need to recognize that there is a difference between an article that is POV, and an article that reports on a book, whose contents are POV. Articles on books that are POV are not necessarily POV themselves. If the article is NPOV it clearly belongs on the wikipedia.
  • If a book is notable enough to belong on the wikipedia, but the contents are agreed to be POV, then surely the next step is to rewrite it, or to add a {npov} tag?
  • The person who nominated this for deletion put a note in the talk page that the article was an "inaccurate summary" of the book. I haven't read the book. But I have read several articles about it. I believe the brief summary in the article accurately reflects what the articles and reviews of the book said the book contained. Here are some reviews from across the political spectrum.
  • Wikipedians can differ on how much credibility they allow Dr Frank. But the book was widely reviewed and is regularly quoted and cited. And that, IMO, makes it worthy of mention in the wikipedia.
  • As to whether the information about the book should be merged with the George W. Bush article... I think the wikipedia is better served with the information about this book staying in an article of its own. I gather that the GWB article is beset by unending edit wars. IMO the current contents are NPOV. And it will be easier to keep them NPOV if it is a standalone article. Or restore it to NPOV, if you disagree about it being NPOV now.
  • IMO standalone ancillary articles make the wikipedia easier to use than huge, monolithic, omnibus articles. -- Geo Swan 21:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this book has a good sales ranking on amazon Yuckfoo 22:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


  • How can people vote in good faith if they say, I haven't read the book. But I have read several articles about it. ??? Joaquin Murietta 23:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That's the whole point of the policy wikipedia:No original research. I don't have to report about this damn book. I have to report what has already been reported in reputable sources about it. Of course, reading the book itself might prove useful for writing an article, but definitely it is useless during voting: an opinion (read: POV) of a vikipedian about the book itself is irrelevant. mikka (t) 00:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Good point, in this case the person who said they did not read the book did write the article! Joaquin Murietta 02:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • My keep vote is not based on an assessment of the accuracy of Dr Frank's views, but on widely the book has penetrated the public consciousness. I have a google news alert on "Justin Frank". Over the last year it has generated, on average, more than one hit per week. That is not an enormous presence. But I think it is enough to justify an article. I remain curious what basis JM used to justify writing in the talk page that the article was an "inaccurate summary" of the book. -- Geo Swan 07:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm glad to answer that. Here is the article written by Geo Swan, without ever reading the book!'

        Bush on the Couch is the title of a book by psychoanalyst Justin Frank. One of Frank's main concerns of Frank's book is that President George W. Bush, as an untreated alcoholic, was in constant danger of a relapse. Further, in Frank's opinion, President Bush manifested the symptoms of a dry-drunk, principally irritability, judgementalism and a rigid, unadaptable world view. Defenders of President Bush have responded by challenging the value and scientific respectability of analyzing someone without a clinical interview.

        Maybe if you actually read a few books, Geo Swan... oh well. Never mind. Joaquin Murietta 14:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • My writing seem to serve as a red flag to a bull to JM.
  • Here is a new article JM started about an hour ago, which contains what I consider a personal attack, in violation of wiki policy.
  • Here is a comment JM left on my talk page, similar to those above, and my reply. -- Geo Swan 16:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Seems to have attracted some attention see a Google search [1]. Capitalistroadster 00:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Appears to be genuine, but still could do with a clean-up! I really cant see a need to delete this article. - Bwfc 13:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable enough book on Google and Amazon. Agree with others re cleanup, but that is no reason to delete a perfectly valid article. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up. Fawcett5 13:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why would you want to delete this. A published book with topical content. --Meiers Twins 18:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wasn't aware of any of this until I found Justin Frank submitted by Joaquin Murietta today. Submitting an article that begins "Justin Frank is the author of a book that Geo Swan has never read" is childish and constitutes a personal attack (see article history). There is no reason to waste everyone's time like that. --JJay 19:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the book looks notable enough - no need to have read it to write about it, the article is not meant to be a book review --Me or a Robin 11:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per JJay. --Apyule 11:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable book. Also, I concur with what JJay said. --rob 06:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: the article is a published book and is therefore a totally valid entry. You don't need to like it, but the fact is that it exists. The article just needs to be cleaned up and kept from bias. devotchka


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.